![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
First things first: I'm not someone who appreciates absolute descriptions. I see the planet and its people interacting in a myriad of ways best described with a myriad shades of grays, not blacks and whites. Is an act of offering someone a job, for example, capitalist exploitation or one of beneficent opportunity? For me, it depends on the job and the wage.
How about the decision one must make if one is "communist" or "capitalist?" In Orson Welles: A Biography, Welles tells his biographer of an encounter he had with an FBI agent during the Cold War. Agents were common in theater, since Hoover thought all entertainers were Commies until proven otherwise. Welles finally cornered the G-Man tailing him and asked him why he was being followed. The Fed said to prove he wasn't a communist. Welles asked him what a communist was. The Fed said, "Someone who gives his money to the government."
Welles pointed out that since he was at the top of the income bracket, he therefore paid 90% of everything he made in income taxes. "I guess that makes me 90% Communist," he concluded.
His answer always resonated with my belief in a spectrum of conditions providing one the boundaries of any given definition, as opposed to a binary "either/or" declaration of definition. More and more, though, I realize how unique I must be in this regard. I see in so many people the need to absolutely declare beyond any and all argument that X situation must be called X-ism, and that this definition must be maintained in perpetuity for all to see and learn from. These people can be found on both the right and the left sides of the political spectrum. The need to define and categorize knows no philosophical boundary. However, I have noticed one disturbing trend that does follow party lines,
( though not a way most could expect. )
So where are we? By abandoning nuance in favor of the bourgeois/proletariat divide, many on the left have created a blind spot in their thinking that fails to observe, collate and consider subtle distinctions in individual capitalist situations. The broad brush cannot fill in the tiny but important details. That's a problem, to be sure; but I hesitate to suggest it is a deliberate problem. No, economic theory can be complex and therefore might cause confusion. Cultural differences, historical context, personal myopia, all conspire to distort a more accurate portrayal of circumstances and the language that should be used to describe said circumstances. It's not deliberate; it's just complex.
I cannot, however, say the same is true of the right. I'm sorry, folks, but the language is in much graver danger of abuse from the more conservative elements of our society, a claim I intend to support with argument backed by evidence in Part II.
How about the decision one must make if one is "communist" or "capitalist?" In Orson Welles: A Biography, Welles tells his biographer of an encounter he had with an FBI agent during the Cold War. Agents were common in theater, since Hoover thought all entertainers were Commies until proven otherwise. Welles finally cornered the G-Man tailing him and asked him why he was being followed. The Fed said to prove he wasn't a communist. Welles asked him what a communist was. The Fed said, "Someone who gives his money to the government."
Welles pointed out that since he was at the top of the income bracket, he therefore paid 90% of everything he made in income taxes. "I guess that makes me 90% Communist," he concluded.
His answer always resonated with my belief in a spectrum of conditions providing one the boundaries of any given definition, as opposed to a binary "either/or" declaration of definition. More and more, though, I realize how unique I must be in this regard. I see in so many people the need to absolutely declare beyond any and all argument that X situation must be called X-ism, and that this definition must be maintained in perpetuity for all to see and learn from. These people can be found on both the right and the left sides of the political spectrum. The need to define and categorize knows no philosophical boundary. However, I have noticed one disturbing trend that does follow party lines,
( though not a way most could expect. )So where are we? By abandoning nuance in favor of the bourgeois/proletariat divide, many on the left have created a blind spot in their thinking that fails to observe, collate and consider subtle distinctions in individual capitalist situations. The broad brush cannot fill in the tiny but important details. That's a problem, to be sure; but I hesitate to suggest it is a deliberate problem. No, economic theory can be complex and therefore might cause confusion. Cultural differences, historical context, personal myopia, all conspire to distort a more accurate portrayal of circumstances and the language that should be used to describe said circumstances. It's not deliberate; it's just complex.
I cannot, however, say the same is true of the right. I'm sorry, folks, but the language is in much graver danger of abuse from the more conservative elements of our society, a claim I intend to support with argument backed by evidence in Part II.
